Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Looking to join a climate community? Try your workplace.

News Feed
Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Welcome back to our series on personal climate action, exploring new frameworks for the question: “How do I make a difference?” So far, we’ve covered stories of people making waves by raising their voices in court and expressing their climate values during some of the most meaningful moments in their lives. This week’s piece explores the idea that one of the most powerful individual actions you might take is joining or organizing a climate community — and we’re focusing on a particular space where people are already a part of a collective that can advocate for change: the workplace. Most of us spend a lot of time at our jobs. And even if you don’t work in an obvious climate field, just about every sector touches or is impacted by the climate crisis in some way. Grist’s climate solutions fellow Katie Myers explores how unions and other organized groups of workers are banding together over shared concerns, and using their collective power to advocate for greener, safer, and more just practices from their employers. The vision “Our job is to organize the people. Because if you don’t organize the people, you can shout all you want, you can write all you want about a policy issue and the climate and environmental problems, but it’s not gonna go anywhere.” Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee The spotlight Caitlyn McLaren is a nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. She was active in student environmental organizing while in college, but after starting full-time work in healthcare, long hours and a stressful work environment began to take their toll. Like so many, she found that she no longer could make time for climate justice organizing. But then, about four years ago, she discovered that she could continue to be a climate advocate — at work, rather than outside of it. “A member approached the president of our local [union chapter] and said, ‘You know, climate change is something that I’m really concerned about,’” McLaren recalls. And the SEIU 1991 Climate Committee was born. The committee gave hospital workers a chance to discuss some of their shared concerns about the climate impacts of their industry — everything from the chemicals in use at the hospital to the massive amount of waste generated by disposable dishware to the carcinogenic smoke from the gas used to cauterize tissue in the operating room. Since the committee was formed, McLaren and her colleagues have successfully diverted over 27,000 pounds of medical waste from the landfill and installed charging stations for electric cars, with several other campaigns still active. McLaren says being in a unionized workplace made it possible for her to get involved with environmental advocacy again. “Having a union can help with creating that space for people to actually be able to think about the big picture issues, because we’re so busy with the day-to-day grind of our job,” she says. Often, labor unions are associated with opposition to the environmental movement, particularly the green energy transition that would take away already imperiled jobs in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. But workers — unionized and not — have also been at the forefront of many environmental movements. Even if we don’t think of our jobs as climate-related, most industries have climate impacts, and workers have used that fact to push their workplaces toward a more responsible relationship with the environment. Among that number are healthcare workers like McLaren, Amazon employees and Uber drivers working to reduce their companies’ emissions, steel workers pushing for a green transition, and many, many more who have seen their workplaces as sites of agitation for climate justice, and as opportunities to create a healthier world. The phrase “environmental justice” actually has roots in the labor movement. Farm Labor Organizing Committee president Baldemar Velasquez says that the farmworkers’ movement, as well as members of a rural North Carolina Black community threatened by a proposed landfill, helped popularize the phrase at the The Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazard in 1990. With it came a growing awareness of environmental racism, and of environmental struggle as extending beyond the prevailing middle-class white concerns about conservation. Conversations about environmental issues began to focus on the impacts of industry and extraction on predominantly Black and brown, low-income, and immigrant communities. “We were challenging the mainstream environmentalists,” Velasquez says. And the relationship between workers and environmental justice goes back well before the origins of the phrase. In the 1960s, groups like the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike of 1968 (where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his final speech) and the immigrant-led United Farmworkers’ Organizing Committee, whose first contracts included protection from certain pesticides, spearheaded the idea that workers could rally around environmental causes, and that many environmental issues were workers’ issues, too. Farmworkers are among the most vulnerable social groups in the United States, often migrants on visas with very few legal protections. For them, climate change is a matter of life and death, with small shifts in heat and the growing season directly impacting their ability to make a living and survive a day’s work. Today, farmworkers continue to push for climate-specific protections, including sun and heat protection, disaster insurance, and language-inclusive wildfire safety and evacuation information. Velasquez says that the Farm Labor Organizing Committee is also focused on battles with corrupt contractors and securing collective bargaining agreements for growers. “I think that organizing, grassroots membership organizations, is the vehicle to begin to address some of these individual problems,” Velasquez says. “If there’s a worker that’s got a problem,” he adds, “I love hearing those people, because then I challenge them to do something about it.” Liz Ratzloff, the co-director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, first entered the labor movement as a graduate student worker at the University of Michigan, where she organized for divestment from fossil fuels and to expand affordable transportation and housing. Now, she coordinates with workers and unions to organize at the intersection of climate justice and workers’ rights. She has worked with educators, postal workers, auto workers, and railroad workers, just to name a few. “In order to build the power to be able to take on the fossil fuel industry, we need the labor movement, environmental and climate justice groups, [and] frontline and historically marginalized communities to unite around using climate action to address social inequities,” Ratzloff says. By organizing teachers, for instance, Ratzloff believes it’s possible to make ripple effects through entire communities — pushing for greener schools could include things like better indoor air quality and carbon-neutral facilities, but also climate education and pathways to union jobs in renewable energy for students. In particular, Ratzloff says it’s important for environmental and labor movements to organize with younger workers, many of whom have an interest in climate justice and are often left wondering where to plug in. Across the country, workers have formed climate committees and coalitions to talk through sustainability issues and strategize on how to hold their industries accountable. In Oakland, California, in early May, teachers went on strike for the climate, demanding more environmental justice curricula and cleaner air in schools. In previous years, Los Angeles teachers walked out for similar reasons, demanding in particular support for students traumatized by wildfires and other symptoms of the global climate crisis. Social workers, who witness the impacts of systemic environmental racism on their clients, are creating initiatives to better address housing-related environmental issues such as lead paint. And just earlier this month, Waffle House employees, under the banner of United Southern Service Workers, spoke out against their employer’s support of an environmentally destructive police-training facility in Atlanta, dubbed “Cop City.” In recent years, white-collar Amazon workers — computer engineers, coders, and others — have demanded the company take responsibility for its massive carbon emissions and work to reduce them. In 2019, hundreds of Amazon employees walked off the job after the floods in Pakistan, demanding reparations to the country for the company’s outsized carbon emissions. In the past, Amazon workers have also demanded parts of the company stop doing business with the oil and gas industry. Over 1,000 Amazon workers walked out again in May for a host of reasons, among them unfulfilled demands to reduce pollution from the company’s fleet of delivery vans. Their efforts highlight both the power and risks of standing up to an employer. Amazon now has a Climate Pledge, and has begun transitioning its vehicle fleet to EVs and donating to rainforest conservation efforts. But the company has also retaliated against workers, in one case illegally firing the two women who founded Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. Workers have also called out the company for using its climate promises as greenwashing, and they continue to agitate around environmental responsibility. Ratzloff says the first step in bringing climate advocacy to any workplace is basic: Talk to your coworkers. “Identifying issues, creating solutions, and fighting for those within your workplace through collective action is incredibly important,” she says. “As individuals, we can’t make the changes that are necessary to drastically reduce carbon emissions.” Caitlyn McLaren agrees. Talking to her coworkers about climate concerns, she says, made her feel connected to them in deeper ways. And it wasn’t hard to get the ball rolling. “For us, we started just by sending out an email and saying, ‘Hey, is anyone else interested in this?’” McLaren says. Hospital workers jumped at the chance to make more meaning out of their work, and to have a broader impact on their community’s safety and health. After successfully organizing to reduce medical waste in the hospital system, the climate committee members are starting to strategize around getting their hospital to apply for Inflation Reduction Act funds, which McLaren says may support decarbonization and energy efficiency projects for nonprofit hospitals. As McLaren and her coworkers have found meaning in their environmental organizing, she says they’ve also renewed their passion for their paid work and their determination to make their workplace better for everyone in and around it. “I’m really interested in the leverage that workers have in institutions that we’re a part of,” McLaren says, “[and] being able to change practices or push our institutions to do more and to do better.” — Katie Myers More exposure Read: more about the history of organized labor and the environmental justice movement (Process) Read: more about the state of air quality and other needed infrastructure updates in schools (Educators Climate Action Network) Read: about UPS drivers demanding AC in trucks as heat waves all over the country create unsafe conditions (The City) Read: how care workers who help vulnerable populations, like the elderly and people with disabilities, are becoming first responders during disasters (Undark) See for yourself What overlaps do you see between climate change and your day job (or night job, or side hustle — or all of the above)? Have you considered talking with your coworkers about climate concerns in your industry? Reply to this email to share your thoughts. A parting shot Check out this short video from the Center for Cultural Power, an advocacy organization working at the intersection of art, culture, and social justice. (The vid was produced and directed by filmmaker Layel Camargo and voiced by singer and actress Antonique Smith, both of whom have been featured on our Grist 50 list of climate changemakers). With fun animations, it chronicles the overlap between the climate crisis, capitalism, and the exploitation of labor. IMAGE CREDITS Vision: Grist Parting Shot: The Center for Cultural Power This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Looking to join a climate community? Try your workplace. on Jun 21, 2023.

The labor movement and the environmental justice movement have a shared history — and today, workers in all kinds of sectors are banding together to call for climate action.

Welcome back to our series on personal climate action, exploring new frameworks for the question: “How do I make a difference?” So far, we’ve covered stories of people making waves by raising their voices in court and expressing their climate values during some of the most meaningful moments in their lives. This week’s piece explores the idea that one of the most powerful individual actions you might take is joining or organizing a climate community — and we’re focusing on a particular space where people are already a part of a collective that can advocate for change: the workplace.

Most of us spend a lot of time at our jobs. And even if you don’t work in an obvious climate field, just about every sector touches or is impacted by the climate crisis in some way. Grist’s climate solutions fellow Katie Myers explores how unions and other organized groups of workers are banding together over shared concerns, and using their collective power to advocate for greener, safer, and more just practices from their employers.

Illustration of three raised fists

The vision

“Our job is to organize the people. Because if you don’t organize the people, you can shout all you want, you can write all you want about a policy issue and the climate and environmental problems, but it’s not gonna go anywhere.”

Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee

The spotlight

Caitlyn McLaren is a nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. She was active in student environmental organizing while in college, but after starting full-time work in healthcare, long hours and a stressful work environment began to take their toll. Like so many, she found that she no longer could make time for climate justice organizing.

But then, about four years ago, she discovered that she could continue to be a climate advocate — at work, rather than outside of it.

“A member approached the president of our local [union chapter] and said, ‘You know, climate change is something that I’m really concerned about,’” McLaren recalls. And the SEIU 1991 Climate Committee was born.

The committee gave hospital workers a chance to discuss some of their shared concerns about the climate impacts of their industry — everything from the chemicals in use at the hospital to the massive amount of waste generated by disposable dishware to the carcinogenic smoke from the gas used to cauterize tissue in the operating room. Since the committee was formed, McLaren and her colleagues have successfully diverted over 27,000 pounds of medical waste from the landfill and installed charging stations for electric cars, with several other campaigns still active.

McLaren says being in a unionized workplace made it possible for her to get involved with environmental advocacy again. “Having a union can help with creating that space for people to actually be able to think about the big picture issues, because we’re so busy with the day-to-day grind of our job,” she says.

Often, labor unions are associated with opposition to the environmental movement, particularly the green energy transition that would take away already imperiled jobs in coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. But workers — unionized and not — have also been at the forefront of many environmental movements.

Even if we don’t think of our jobs as climate-related, most industries have climate impacts, and workers have used that fact to push their workplaces toward a more responsible relationship with the environment. Among that number are healthcare workers like McLaren, Amazon employees and Uber drivers working to reduce their companies’ emissions, steel workers pushing for a green transition, and many, many more who have seen their workplaces as sites of agitation for climate justice, and as opportunities to create a healthier world.

. . .

The phrase “environmental justice” actually has roots in the labor movement. Farm Labor Organizing Committee president Baldemar Velasquez says that the farmworkers’ movement, as well as members of a rural North Carolina Black community threatened by a proposed landfill, helped popularize the phrase at the The Michigan Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazard in 1990. With it came a growing awareness of environmental racism, and of environmental struggle as extending beyond the prevailing middle-class white concerns about conservation. Conversations about environmental issues began to focus on the impacts of industry and extraction on predominantly Black and brown, low-income, and immigrant communities.

“We were challenging the mainstream environmentalists,” Velasquez says.

And the relationship between workers and environmental justice goes back well before the origins of the phrase. In the 1960s, groups like the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike of 1968 (where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his final speech) and the immigrant-led United Farmworkers’ Organizing Committee, whose first contracts included protection from certain pesticides, spearheaded the idea that workers could rally around environmental causes, and that many environmental issues were workers’ issues, too.

Farmworkers are among the most vulnerable social groups in the United States, often migrants on visas with very few legal protections. For them, climate change is a matter of life and death, with small shifts in heat and the growing season directly impacting their ability to make a living and survive a day’s work. Today, farmworkers continue to push for climate-specific protections, including sun and heat protection, disaster insurance, and language-inclusive wildfire safety and evacuation information. Velasquez says that the Farm Labor Organizing Committee is also focused on battles with corrupt contractors and securing collective bargaining agreements for growers.

“I think that organizing, grassroots membership organizations, is the vehicle to begin to address some of these individual problems,” Velasquez says. “If there’s a worker that’s got a problem,” he adds, “I love hearing those people, because then I challenge them to do something about it.”

. . .

Liz Ratzloff, the co-director of the Labor Network for Sustainability, first entered the labor movement as a graduate student worker at the University of Michigan, where she organized for divestment from fossil fuels and to expand affordable transportation and housing. Now, she coordinates with workers and unions to organize at the intersection of climate justice and workers’ rights. She has worked with educators, postal workers, auto workers, and railroad workers, just to name a few.

“In order to build the power to be able to take on the fossil fuel industry, we need the labor movement, environmental and climate justice groups, [and] frontline and historically marginalized communities to unite around using climate action to address social inequities,” Ratzloff says. By organizing teachers, for instance, Ratzloff believes it’s possible to make ripple effects through entire communities — pushing for greener schools could include things like better indoor air quality and carbon-neutral facilities, but also climate education and pathways to union jobs in renewable energy for students.

In particular, Ratzloff says it’s important for environmental and labor movements to organize with younger workers, many of whom have an interest in climate justice and are often left wondering where to plug in. Across the country, workers have formed climate committees and coalitions to talk through sustainability issues and strategize on how to hold their industries accountable.

In Oakland, California, in early May, teachers went on strike for the climate, demanding more environmental justice curricula and cleaner air in schools. In previous years, Los Angeles teachers walked out for similar reasons, demanding in particular support for students traumatized by wildfires and other symptoms of the global climate crisis. Social workers, who witness the impacts of systemic environmental racism on their clients, are creating initiatives to better address housing-related environmental issues such as lead paint. And just earlier this month, Waffle House employees, under the banner of United Southern Service Workers, spoke out against their employer’s support of an environmentally destructive police-training facility in Atlanta, dubbed “Cop City.”

In recent years, white-collar Amazon workers — computer engineers, coders, and others — have demanded the company take responsibility for its massive carbon emissions and work to reduce them. In 2019, hundreds of Amazon employees walked off the job after the floods in Pakistan, demanding reparations to the country for the company’s outsized carbon emissions. In the past, Amazon workers have also demanded parts of the company stop doing business with the oil and gas industry.

Over 1,000 Amazon workers walked out again in May for a host of reasons, among them unfulfilled demands to reduce pollution from the company’s fleet of delivery vans.

Their efforts highlight both the power and risks of standing up to an employer. Amazon now has a Climate Pledge, and has begun transitioning its vehicle fleet to EVs and donating to rainforest conservation efforts. But the company has also retaliated against workers, in one case illegally firing the two women who founded Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. Workers have also called out the company for using its climate promises as greenwashing, and they continue to agitate around environmental responsibility.

. . .

Ratzloff says the first step in bringing climate advocacy to any workplace is basic: Talk to your coworkers. “Identifying issues, creating solutions, and fighting for those within your workplace through collective action is incredibly important,” she says. “As individuals, we can’t make the changes that are necessary to drastically reduce carbon emissions.”

Caitlyn McLaren agrees. Talking to her coworkers about climate concerns, she says, made her feel connected to them in deeper ways. And it wasn’t hard to get the ball rolling. “For us, we started just by sending out an email and saying, ‘Hey, is anyone else interested in this?’” McLaren says.

Hospital workers jumped at the chance to make more meaning out of their work, and to have a broader impact on their community’s safety and health. After successfully organizing to reduce medical waste in the hospital system, the climate committee members are starting to strategize around getting their hospital to apply for Inflation Reduction Act funds, which McLaren says may support decarbonization and energy efficiency projects for nonprofit hospitals.

As McLaren and her coworkers have found meaning in their environmental organizing, she says they’ve also renewed their passion for their paid work and their determination to make their workplace better for everyone in and around it.

“I’m really interested in the leverage that workers have in institutions that we’re a part of,” McLaren says, “[and] being able to change practices or push our institutions to do more and to do better.”

— Katie Myers

More exposure

See for yourself

What overlaps do you see between climate change and your day job (or night job, or side hustle — or all of the above)? Have you considered talking with your coworkers about climate concerns in your industry? Reply to this email to share your thoughts.

A parting shot

Check out this short video from the Center for Cultural Power, an advocacy organization working at the intersection of art, culture, and social justice. (The vid was produced and directed by filmmaker Layel Camargo and voiced by singer and actress Antonique Smith, both of whom have been featured on our Grist 50 list of climate changemakers). With fun animations, it chronicles the overlap between the climate crisis, capitalism, and the exploitation of labor.

A large white play button sits over a cartoonish image of a castle on a gray, smoky background, with the word "Capitalism" in jaunty lettering.

IMAGE CREDITS

Vision: Grist

Parting Shot: The Center for Cultural Power

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Looking to join a climate community? Try your workplace. on Jun 21, 2023.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Smothered by Seaweed: Sargassum Wreaks Havoc on Caribbean Ecosystems

Its growth driven to epic levels by climate change and fertilizer runoff, sargassum puts dozens of species — and people — at risk. The post Smothered by Seaweed: Sargassum Wreaks Havoc on Caribbean Ecosystems appeared first on The Revelator.

Originally published by Centro de Periodismo Investigativo with The BVI Beacon, The Virgin Islands Daily News, America Futura – El País América, Jamaica and the RCI Guadeloupe. For more than 20 years, Mexican biologist María del Carmen García Rivas has led a crusade to protect the coral lining the Yucatan Peninsula in the Caribbean Sea. As director of the Puerto Morelos Reefs National Park in México, she has advocated for reforms to reduce runoff and other pollution from coastal development. She has spearheaded efforts to control lionfish, an introduced species that has put at risk the nearly 670 species of marine fauna that inhabit the park. And since 2018, she has organized brigades to restore reefs damaged by tissue-destroying coral diseases known as white syndromes. But now, yet another threat has been keeping her awake at night: massive blooms of sargassum seaweed reaching the coast of the park. “When the sargassum, a macroalgae that usually floats, reaches the coasts, it begins to decompose, generating an environment without oxygen that kills different organisms,” she said. “It mainly affects species that cannot move or move very little, such as some starfish, sea urchins, the sea grasses themselves, and of course corals.” Along the coast of Quintana Roo, the Mexican state where the Puerto Morelos Reefs National Park is based, the local government collected 70 tons of sargassum during 2023 alone, said Huguette Hernández Gómez, the state’s Secretary of Ecology and Environment. Added to what they collected during the last four years, the figure reaches 200 tons. Regional Problem This story is familiar across the Caribbean. Though modest amounts of sargassum benefit marine life in the region, massive influxes arriving since 2011 have upset the ecological balance in some areas in ways that could be irreversible. Scientists blame the explosive growth of the seaweed on global pollution, climate change, and other international problems that Caribbean islands did little to cause and lack the political power to resolve. The seaweed has exacerbated existing stress on the region’s reefs, which last year faced a massive bleaching event linked also to warming waters associated with climate change. Exposure to extreme temperatures for extended periods breaks down the relationship between the corals and the algae living inside of them. Corals are left pale or white, and the lack of food from algae can lead them to die, according to the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Sargassum mats have also blocked sea turtle nesting sites and inundated mangroves, which serve as crucial nurseries for countless aquatic species. Birds feed on small fish caught in seaweed mat along the South-Eastern coast of the Portmore Causeway in St. Catherine, Jamaica on May 2, 2023.Photo by Kirk Wright | Television Jamaica In some areas, beaches have been eroded by the seaweed and by the heavy machinery used to remove it. Many fishers complain that their catch has dwindled sharply. But because of the magnitude of the relatively recent problem — which is affecting coastlines from West Africa to the Americas — the true extent of the environmental damage is poorly understood, according to Dr. Brian LaPointe, a biologist and sargassum expert at Florida Atlantic University. “We haven’t gotten very far in the research to understand the causes or how to deal with it and manage and mitigate the impacts on the environment,” LaPointe said. Second Largest Barrier Reef The effects that García Rivas has seen in Mexico illustrate the implications for the entire region. The park she oversees is part of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, which stretches along more than 600 miles of coastline in Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. As the second longest barrier reef in the world — only the Great Barrier Reef in Australia is longer, at about 1,400 miles — the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef is home to some 500 species of fish and 60 species of stony corals, according to the World Wildlife Fund. It also supports the livelihoods of one to two million people in the region, the WWF states. Floating sargassum can provide a healthy habitat, but when it washes against the shore in mass quantities it often suffocates certain organisms, said James Foley, director of oceans for The Nature Conservancy. “In coastal areas like Belize, the problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the sargassum also attracts a lot of marine rubbish: local garbage that runs off from the rivers that come into the Caribbean from Central America. So it ends up being a pretty toxic environment,” he said. The sargassum also creates a barrier that blocks light and prevents organisms below it from photosynthesizing, according to Foley. A 2021 study published in the scientific journal Climate Change Ecology, which analyzed the situation in three bays in Quintana Roo, Mexico, found that under the sargassum mats the light seepage decreased up to 73% and the water temperature could be as much as 5 degrees Celsius warmer. Bacterial Diseases In addition, García Rivas said, bacteria carried by the sargassum may be affecting the corals as well. “Some of the diseases suffered by the corals could be related to all the bacteria brought in by the sargassum or that arise during its decomposition,” she said. “Although it becomes an environment without oxygen, there are bacteria that may be able to survive, affecting not only the corals but also generating fish mortality.” Such effects exacerbate existing threats to the reef, she said, noting that the worst historical damage has come from coastal development and inadequate management of sewage and other waste. “In general, contaminated seawater does not allow corals to live properly,” she said. “It weakens them. And when they present diseases or are stressed by heat, it is easier for them to die.” A similar scenario has played out in Jamaica, according to Dr. Camilo Trench, a marine biologist at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica. “The problem is that the seaweed grows fast and the corals grow slowly,” Trench said. “So if the sargassum is in the area with other macroalgae, it can overgrow the coral reef area quite quickly. So now it will not only reduce the space that the corals will have to grow: It will also reduce the settlement area of the coral nursery.” Sargassum Smothers Other Species Coral might be one of the most visible animals affected by sargassum, but is not the only one. A study published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin analyzed a massive sargassum influx that swamped the shores of the Mexican Caribbean in 2018, decomposing and turning the water cloudy. As a result, the researchers found, organisms from 78 wildlife species died. The worst affected were demersal neritic fish, which live at the bottom of shallow areas of the sea, and crustaceans. Other scientists have raised concerns about sargassum’s effects on turtle nests. In 2017, Briggite Gavio, a professor of marine biology at the National University of Colombia, visited Cayo Serranilla, a tiny 600-by-400-meter island at the northernmost tip of the Colombian Caribbean. The island is only inhabited by military personnel and it’s a perfect place for sea turtles to nest.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Sargassum Monitoring® (@sargassum_monitoring) But when Gavio was there as part of a scientific expedition, sargassum had formed a mat up to 40 centimeters (16 inches) high on the beaches. “We were able to observe that some turtle hatchlings had trouble getting past the barrier posed by the sargassum mat, and were vulnerable to predation by ghost crabs, rats and other predators,” she wrote in a 2018 paper about her observations. Similar observations about the effects of sargassum in sea turtles have been made by scientists on other islands such as Antigua and Barbuda. Killing Mangroves, Too Sargassum also appears to have a potentially lethal impact on Caribbean mangroves, an important natural barrier for extreme hurricanes. “These are plants that live on the seashore and are tidal plants, but they depend on their aerial roots and their respiratory roots, which are underground, for oxygen,” said Trench, the biologist in Jamaica. “Now imagine a mat covering those roots and preventing oxygen from flowing through them. It can definitely cause death if it is long-term and similar to the impact of something like oil slicks on the mangrove or litter, such as solid waste.” As with corals, mangroves sometimes end up smothered, sustaining damage themselves and putting at risk other species that depend on them. No ‘Virtuous Circle’ For García Rivas, the biologist in Mexico, one fact is particularly alarming: Unlike many other problems facing the reefs she oversees, the sargassum influx has no clear solution. “We haven’t come up with a virtuous circle as we have, for example, with lionfish,” she said. “Despite being an invasive species, [lionfish] can be fished and eaten, which mitigates the problem.” Local Government Looks for Solutions Faced with this problem, last year the state of Quintana Roo created a committee of 60 experts from different areas that worked for seven months to help create what is now known as the Integral Strategy for the Management and Use of Sargassum in Quintana Roo. The strategy covers eight areas: health; research and monitoring; knowledge management, processes and logistics; utilization; legal framework; economic instruments and cross-cutting axes. Its key advances include designating the state of Quintana Roo as the authority in charge of granting permits to researchers and companies working to turn sargassum into a product. “The state government is the one that gives all the permits for issues ranging from transportation, collection to final destination. With that we avoid that companies are going around in circles between whether to ask the federal or municipal government where to acquire the permits,” said Hernández Gómez, the ecology and environment secretary.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Ronald Lusk (@ronaldlusk) The response is costly. Last year, she said, the Secretariat of the Navy was assigned about $3 million to collect sargassum at sea using its ships and anchorage barriers, while the Federal Maritime Terrestrial Zone was assigned about $7 million more to collect it from beaches. In Quintana Roo, through the Secretariat headed by Hernandez Gómez, another $1.7 million is coming in to address the problem. “And this year that investment will be maintained,” she said. This investigation is the result of a fellowship awarded by the Center for Investigative Journalism’s Training Institute and was made possible in part with the support of Open Society Foundations. Read the rest of the stories in this series. Previously in The Revelator: New Hope for Horseshoe Crabs — and the Shorebirds That Depend on Them The post Smothered by Seaweed: Sargassum Wreaks Havoc on Caribbean Ecosystems appeared first on The Revelator.

Why climate change action requires "degrowth" to make our planet sustainable

Salon spoke with Japanese philosophy professor Kohei Saito about his new book, "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto"

Climate change truly is a major existential threat, one we're clearly not addressing fast enough. But as individuals, there's little we can do to stop it on a grand scale — it will require global cooperation to overcome. Nonetheless, the accompanying feelings of helplessness when faced with such a daunting crisis can make many feel paralyzed with despair. So what can be done? "Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto," a new book from University of Tokyo philosophy professor Kohei Saito, offers more than a diagnosis of the systemic problems that brought us to this moment; it lays out, in clear and well-researched language, how those problems can be thoroughly addressed. In 2020, when "Slow Down" was originally published in Japan, it went by the far more fitting title "Capital in the Anthropocene" — with "Anthropocene" being the proposed geological era that began when human activity started radically altering natural conditions on the planet. "My idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production." Saito's argument, as translated by Brian Bergstrom, is that climate change exists because humans as a species prioritize economic growth instead of economic sustainability. Capitalism itself, Saito asserts, is unsustainable. Even though well-meaning liberal politicians like to push for Green New Deals in the hope of continuing non-stop economic growth without the consequent ecological harm, Saito argues capitalist societies need to perpetually consume resources to remain prosperous. As a result, capitalism itself inevitably brings about planet-wide problems like climate change, habitat destruction, plastic pollution and other environmental issues. The only solution is for humanity as a whole to slow down our obsession with work, productivity and materialism. Notably, Saito stresses that the bulk of the burden to consume less falls on the wealthiest among us. Saito doesn't take credit for these observations. Philosopher Karl Marx developed a philosophy in the 1860s that Saito describes as "eco-Marxist" (particularly in Saito's previous work, "Karl Marx's Eco-Socialism"). While the German philosopher's early works like "The Communist Manifesto" urged the working class to insist on receiving its fair share of the benefits of industrialism, Marx's later writings praised Indigenous peoples in the Americas, India and Algeria for living in communes that stressed sustainable environmental practices. As such, "Slow Down" is that rare hybrid among ideological manifestos: It opens new insights into an existing ideology while uplifting something distinct of its own. Salon spoke with Saito about "Slow Down" and the relationship climate change has to economics. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. For those who are totally unfamiliar with the works of Karl Marx, can you please explain how one must distinguish between his early works and the later works that you describe as "eco-Marxism"?  Marxism is known for socialism, and socialism is often described as the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism has a tendency to increase technologies and promote innovations because of market competition. But Marx thought that once the workers take over power and kick out the capitalists, they can utilize the development of productive forces for the sake of themselves — more wealth, more well-being. But there is one problem: Sustainability. Because as Marx started to study natural sciences later in the 1850s and 1860s, he came to realize the development of technologies in capitalism actually don't create a condition for emancipation of the working class. Because not only do those technologies control the workers more efficiently, they destabilize the old system of jobs and make more precarious, low skilled jobs. At the same time those technologies exploit from nature more efficiently and create various problems such as exhaustion of the soil, massive deforestation, and the exhaustion of the fuels, and so on. Marx came to realize that this kind of technology undermines material conditions for sustainable development of human beings. And the central concept for Mark at that time in the sixties is metabolism. He thinks that this metabolic interaction between humans and nature is quite essential for any kind of society, but the problem of capitalism is it really transforms and organizes this entire metabolism between humans and nature for the sake of profit-making. Technologies are also used for this purpose. So technologies are not for the purpose of creating better life, free time and sustainable production, but rather it exploits workers and nature at the same time for the sake of more growth, more profit, and so on. My point is basically Marx was quite optimistic when he was young in terms of the development of technologies, but later he came to realize actually technologies have more damaging impact on both humans and nature. So he became more critical of that possibility of solving those problems of poverty and ecological problems using technology. That's how the issue of degrowth and eco-socialist ideas came to be central for his ideas. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. "We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, 'You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important.' But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this." There's another distortion in Marxist thought, what you described as "the monster known as Stalinism." What ideological corrections do you offer to the Marxist model to avoid a repetition of history?  So I advocate for a kind of eco-socialism, that kind of socialism that is more sustainable, that is not based on exploitation of nature. Because in the 20th century, Stalinism and other kinds of socialist experiments was a disaster. It was un-democratic. It was a dictatorship of the Communist Party, but at the same time it was also destruction of the environment. I think their ideas were rather based on the development of progress through technology, and productive force is the condition for the working class emancipation. And the most efficient way of developing these technologies and productive forces is the monopoly of the means of production by the bureaucrats and the party. It just created a kind of the central planning, which is very top-down and authoritarian and anti-democracy. At the same time, they didn't care about the environment, so it basically destroyed nature. In Marx's later works, he quite intensively studied natural sciences. He also studied at the same time other societies, non-Western societies, that were more sustainable. He came to realize that these societies were not driven toward endless growth. They were communally managing land. They were also democratically redistributing wealth. So he came to realize that more of a kind of bottom-up management of the commonwealth is good for people and creates a more equal society. It's also good for the environment. It was more sustainable because that's why those [Indigenous] societies lasted for many, many years. In America, they lasted many, many years before those people coming to conquer the land. Marx came to recognize that not necessarily Western societies are more progressive in creating a better society for the workers, but rather Western society also need to learn from non-Western societies. This is another very radical transformation for Marx in his late years. But then he came to realize not a top-down Soviet style dictatorship is necessary for the sake of establishing socialism, but rather more democratic, horizontal management of commonwealth lands, water, forests and other resources. That is quite essential for creating a better society. And he actually uses the term association — not socialism or communism. He often describes the future society with "association." And so my idea is really not state socialism, but associated model production. This is why I still use the term "communism," because the society based on capital is capitalism and a society based on the commonwealth, the democratic management of commonwealth is actually to be called "communism." Could you elaborate on how the degrowth philosophy that you say has been implemented in locations like Quito, Ecuador or Barcelona, Spain, as well as during the COVID-19 pandemic. My book, originally in Japanese, was published like three years ago, so it was published in the middle of pandemic. Japan is also a captive society and it's a very conservative society. I didn't expect that this call for going back to Marx and reviving the tradition of communism combined with new idea of degrowth would attract so much attention and interest from people. But it was, I think, because of the pandemic, that we came to recognize how destructive our economic activities were. It was obviously deforestation and that kind of thing. Ugly business was a main cause of the pandemic. Now at the same time, the climate crisis was deepening. So it was a moment we saw how our daily life was quite clearly destructive, but at the same time, we had to stop the economy for the sake of protecting our lives. Shutting down departments, shopping malls and restaurants and so on. We used to believe that it's impossible for the state or for the society to intervene in the market and say, "You know, we shouldn't be making profit because human lives are more important or nature is more important." But in the middle of the pandemic, we did this. We came to realize that these things are actually possible. And once we started working from home, once we stopped taking trains and going to hang out with people, buying new clothes all the time and so on, we came to realize, 'Why did we consume so much? Why did we work so hard?' The pandemic created some kind of space for reflection upon our previous life, the massive consumption, massive production, and massive waste. This is really the moment when the degrowth idea appeared more attractive, because people could spend more time with family, friends — not necessarily friends because of the pandemic, but maybe with friends — they could read more books and newspapers, and they enjoyed different ways of life that are not necessarily consumptionist.  "The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south." At the same time, a new crisis is coming — the climate crisis — and it will accelerate inflation. It will create a bigger economic inequality. And various natural disasters will also create a food shortage, which might lead to various kinds of conflicts. Geopolitical tension will increase, and so on. My claim in my book is basically this crisis cannot be simply overcome by investing in new green technologies. It is like early Marx: We overcome the crisis of capitalism by technologies, the state should intervene, the Green New Deal must be new investments, blah, blah, blah. But I don't think that works. My idea is basically we need to learn from the experience of the pandemic — that capitalist society is driven for the sake of creating more profit, not necessarily able to provide what is necessary. Because what is necessary, like medicine and education and hospital masks and so on — are not necessarily profitable. Capitalism doesn't produce what is necessary unless it is profitable. This gap creates disparities for us to tackle. My idea is basically degrowth is focusing on what is necessary rather than what is profitable. We should share more with the commonwealth like public transportation, the education system, the medical care system. These necessary things, essential goods, must be shared more equally instead of some rich people monopolizing all the wealth of the planet.  Can you explain the "Netherlands Fallacy" — namely, the idea that the Netherlands proves that socialism can be ecologically sustainable and prosperous. Can you elaborate on why that is indeed a fallacy?  I don't know why it's really the Netherlands. It can be the U.S. Fallacy or whatever, but it's traditionally called the Netherlands Fallacy. The Netherlands had some environmental pollution and basically they overcame this issue with new technologies. Everything seems fine, but the problem is this fallacy. The solution to some kind of environmental damage was simply externalized to somewhere else. It was shifted basically to the global south. One contemporary example is electronic vehicles, EVs, which are today very important; Tesla making massive profits, and so on. For the sake of a decarbonized society, I totally agree that we need more electronic vehicles and we need to produce them more, and that gasoline should be abandoned as fast as possible. I totally agree. But the problem is, are electric vehicles totally sustainable?  "This is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd." The answer is obviously no. It is not just that usage of electric vehicles still consumes electricity, which might be produced by using fossil fuels, but the problem is — instead of fossil fuels — we also need a lot of rare metals: Lithium, copper, cobalt. And those rare metals are often located in the global south: Latin America, China, Russia, Africa and so on. And in these places now, the extraction of metals are creating very poor working conditions for even children. Child labor is obviously a problem in Congo, where a lot is massively extracted, but also the problem of environmental pollution, massive deforestation and the lithium use uses a lot of water. Chile is now suffering by wildfires, but they are also suffering from drought. And then mining lithium consumes a lot of water when people actually need water for their lives, and also for producing food, and so on.  People like us and affluent people in the global north can continue a very comfortable life by buying new electric vehicles like Tesla instead of Toyota. And they think that, "Okay, we did something good for the environment. I feel my responsibility for the next generations and so on." They are actually falling into this fallacy of believing their sustainability. No, they're not. Their behavior is not sustainable because the real problem is only hidden: massive extraction of the lithium in the global south. It's still causing quite a damaging impact upon people and the environment. So the metabolism between humans and nature, it's still distorted and disrupted in a quite serious manner. And my idea of degrowth is not a negation of technology. We need electric vehicles. I repeat again because this is open to misunderstanding that degrowth denies technology to try to go back to nature or something like that. This is absurd, but at the same time, I clearly want to say that there are too many cars. We need to shift to a society where we share electric vehicles with neighbors. So sharing cars. And we also need to invest in more green technologies like public transportation and also bicycles. And the bicycles of today are kind of dangerous because all the roads are created for the sake of cars. So the city urban planning is centering around all industries, and that needs to be challenged, that needs to change. And these are idea that degrowth will create a more eco-friendly, pedestrian friendly kind of society. The new kind of fair mobility is a central idea of degrowth. But this is just one example we need. My basic point is that often technologies simply hide the true environmental impacts, and we needed technological development, but at the same time, we need to reduce our excessive consumption. Otherwise we will fall into the Netherlands Fallacy.  I'm reading a book by billionaire philanthropist, Tom Steyer, who argues for more traditional approaches to addressing climate change: Funding green technologies, pushing voter registration drives, supporting a Green New Deal platform. Do you think there is anything fundamentally flawed about approaches for dealing with climate change when they come from billionaires or from others in the elite classes?  Yes. I don't actually deny some kind of Green New Deal, but not a Green New Deal for people like the American people. Because my idea of sustainability is more comprehensive. It includes the people in the global south. So greening or decarbonization in the U.S. can be achieved at the cost of people in the global south, and that doesn't make sense, right? And the same thing can be said within the U.S. The green transformation for the sake of billionaires could be achieved at the cost of many people in the global south. Minority indigenous people could be sacrificed for the sake of sustaining today's capitalism. What do I mean by this? Growth is always good for billionaires. They say, "Okay, we'll invest more in something good — green technologies — and it will grow the economy. And then all the poor people working class people will also benefit from growth." Growth actually hides the necessity of redistribution. When we talk about redistribution and compensation or reparation, billionaires needs to give up some of what they have gained. Not just wealth, but also private jets, massive houses and cruise ships and those luxury items, too. But when we invest in green technologies, flying jets can be sustainable, blah, blah, blah. And they also don't have to redistribute their own wealth because the entire pie of the economy will be bigger, so that the working class can also gain higher salaries and so on. My idea of degrowth is much more challenging because the degrowth doesn't seek after continuous growth of the economic pie.  When the pie doesn't grow, we need to share more. So it really clearly demands the massively distribution of the wealth from the rich people to the poor people. But also we should give up what is actually unnecessary. I claim that, but the most obvious example is private jets. Private jets are unnecessary because people can still fly with business class or whatsoever. So my point is, rich people should give up their wealth, rich people should give up private jets and so on, other unnecessary things. And when people now talk about the Green New Deal, they hide the necessity of such a radical transformation of our lifestyle for the sake of everyone. Read more about climate change

Quantifying the “Carbon Gap” – Unmasking the Shortfalls in Global Climate Efforts

Insufficient carbon dioxide removal efforts jeopardize meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced technologies and strategies. New research suggests that...

Research indicates that existing plans for carbon dioxide removal are inadequate for meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 ºC warming limit. Enhanced awareness and action are required to close the significant gap between projected increases and the needs identified in IPCC focus scenarios.Insufficient carbon dioxide removal efforts jeopardize meeting the Paris Agreement’s climate goals, highlighting the urgent need for enhanced technologies and strategies.New research suggests that countries’ current plans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere will not be enough to comply with the 1.5 ºC warming limit set out under the Paris Agreement.Since 2010, the United Nations environmental organization UNEP has taken an annual measurement of the emissions gap — the difference between countries’ climate protection pledges and what is necessary to limit global heating to 1.5 ºC, or at least below 2 ºC. The UNEP Emissions Gap Reports are clear: climate policy needs more ambition. This new study now explicitly applies this analytical concept to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) — the removal of the most important greenhouse gas, CO2, from the atmosphere.The study, published today (May 3) in the journal Nature Climate Change, was led by the Berlin-based Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC) and involved an international team of scientists.“In the Emissions Gap Reports, carbon removals are only accounted for indirectly,” said lead author Dr. William Lamb, of the MCC Applied Sustainability Science working group.“After all, the usual benchmark for climate protection pledges is net emissions, ie emissions minus removals. We are now making transparent the specific ambition gap in scaling up removals.“This planetary waste management will soon place completely new requirements on policymakers and may even become a central pillar of climate protection in the second half of the century.”Co-author Dr. Naomi Vaughan, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at UEA, added: “Carbon dioxide removal methods have a small but vital role to play in achieving net zero and limiting the impacts of climate change.“Our analysis shows that countries need more awareness, ambition, and action on scaling up CDR methods together with deep emissions reductions to achieve the aspirations of the Paris Agreement.”According to the study, if national targets are fully implemented, annual human-induced carbon removals could increase by a maximum of 0.5 gigatonnes of CO2 (500 million tonnes) by 2030, and by a maximum of 1.9 gigatonnes by 2050.This contrasts with the 5.1 gigatonne increase required in a ‘focus scenario’, which the research team depicts as typical from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report.There, global heating, calculated over the entire course of this century, is limited to 1.5 ºC, and a particularly rapid expansion of renewable energies and reduction of fossil emissions is depicted as the core climate protection strategy.But, the focus scenario still relies on scaling up carbon removals. The gap for the year 2050 is therefore at least 3.2 gigatonnes of CO2 (5.1 minus a maximum of 1.9).An alternative focus scenario, also derived from the IPCC, assumes a significant reduction in global energy demand, due to politically initiated behaviour changes as the core element of climate protection strategy.Here, carbon removals would increase by a more modest amount: 2.5 gigatonnes in 2050. Fully implemented national targets would be close to sufficient when compared to this scenario, with a gap in 2050 of 0.4 gigatonnes.The research team points out the problem of sustainability limits in scaling up carbon removals; for example, the associated land area demand will come to jeopardise biodiversity and food security. Nevertheless, there is still plenty of room for designing fair and sustainable land management policies.In addition, novel carbon removal options, such as air filter systems, or ‘enhanced rock weathering’, have hardly been promoted by politicians to date.They currently only remove 0.002 gigatonnes of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, compared to 3 gigatonnes through conventional options such as afforestation, and they are unlikely to significantly increase by 2030. According to the scenarios, they must become more prevalent than conventional options by 2010.Since only 40 countries have so far quantified their removal plans in their long-term low emissions development strategies, the study also draws on other national documents and best-guess assumptions.“The calculation should certainly be refined,” said Dr. Lamb. “But our proposal using the focus scenarios further opens the discourse on how much carbon removal is necessary to meet the Paris Agreement.“This much is clear: without a rapid reduction in emissions towards zero, across all sectors, the 1.5 ºC limit will not be met under any circumstances.”Reference: “The carbon dioxide removal gap” by Lamb, W, Gasser, T, Roman-Cuesta, R, Grassi, G, Gidden, M, Powis, C, Geden, O, Nemet, G, Pramata, Y, Riahi, K, Smith, S, Steinhauser, J, Vaughan, N, Smith, H, Minx, J, 3 May 2024, Nature Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-024-01984-6

A year in, New York’s pioneering public power law makes uneven progress

One year ago, New York state passed one of the country’s most ambitious clean energy and climate justice laws. The Build Public Renewables Act authorized the New York Power Authority, a state-owned public power utility, to build and own clean energy projects for the first time. If the state falls short of its…

One year ago, New York state passed one of the country’s most ambitious clean energy and climate justice laws. The Build Public Renewables Act authorized the New York Power Authority, a state-owned public power utility, to build and own clean energy projects for the first time. If the state falls short of its ambitious climate goals, the law mandates that NYPA step up to build renewables that will keep the state on track.  Heralded as a major win for environmental justice and climate advocacy groups, the law also introduced a program for low- and moderate-income residents to receive credits for clean energy produced by the public utility and allocated $25 million each year to renewable energy job training, among other measures. But in the year since, progress on implementing the law has been spotty. Though NYPA says it has made carrying out the law a priority by laying the groundwork for future renewable power projects, activists and some policymakers say the utility has not been transparent in its planning thus far, making it hard to tell whether NYPA is on track to transform the state’s energy sector at the pace required by its 2019 climate law. “The real problem is there is not sufficient transparency into what they are planning, so it’s hard for us to say how effective it is,” Michael Paulson, co-chair of the coalition Public Power NY, told Canary Media.  Paulson’s group, along with the New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, labor unions, and climate justice organizations across the state, campaigned for four years to pass the Build Public Renewables Act. An amended form of the law eventually made it into the state’s annual budget early last May. Activists hoped that strengthening the role of publicly owned power would enable a swifter expansion of cleaner, cheaper electricity — and create a structure that’s more accountable to consumers than the dominant investor-owned utility model. Over the past 12 months, the authority has taken some initial steps toward working with private renewable energy developers. In January 2024, NYPA issued a request for information from developers and contractors to learn about opportunities for wind, solar, and battery energy storage projects. In March, the authority followed up with a request for qualifications to evaluate and prequalify renewable developers to work with on future projects, to which it received more than 85 responses. 

New ideas shed light on addressing climate issues

Environmental scientist Hannah Ritchie discusses how technological advances could lead to a more sustainable future in the face of climate challenges.Ezra Klein reports for The New York Times.In short:Clean energy technology is making strides, providing a hopeful outlook for sustainable development.The environmental impact of livestock farming highlights the importance of finding solutions for food production that align with sustainability goals.The politics of implementing large-scale climate initiatives remain complex and challenging, but progress in technology is opening doors to potential solutions.Key quote:"These are tractable problems. They’re not easy problems. They’re really, really difficult to tackle, but they’re tractable."— Hannah Ritchie, lead researcher at Our World in Data.Why this matters: Innovations in clean energy and agriculture will play a significant role in shaping a sustainable future, but the road ahead will require cooperation, determination, and effective policy. Read more: The global food system is failing small-scale farmers — here’s how to fix it.

Environmental scientist Hannah Ritchie discusses how technological advances could lead to a more sustainable future in the face of climate challenges.Ezra Klein reports for The New York Times.In short:Clean energy technology is making strides, providing a hopeful outlook for sustainable development.The environmental impact of livestock farming highlights the importance of finding solutions for food production that align with sustainability goals.The politics of implementing large-scale climate initiatives remain complex and challenging, but progress in technology is opening doors to potential solutions.Key quote:"These are tractable problems. They’re not easy problems. They’re really, really difficult to tackle, but they’re tractable."— Hannah Ritchie, lead researcher at Our World in Data.Why this matters: Innovations in clean energy and agriculture will play a significant role in shaping a sustainable future, but the road ahead will require cooperation, determination, and effective policy. Read more: The global food system is failing small-scale farmers — here’s how to fix it.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.